The Supreme Court on Friday raised important questions on the conduct of Imran Khan and his party during the hearing of the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) chairman’s petition against the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) amendments.

During the hearing in the apex court, Justice Mansoor Ali Shah inquired whether the former premier and his party avoided voting on the NAB Amendment Bill, asking “Does a abstainer have a claim in court?”

Further expressing displeasure, Justice Shah stated that “can a member of the assembly leave the parliament empty?”

Justice Shah added that when the resignations of PTI’s members of the National Assembly (NA) were not accepted, it meant that membership of the lawmakers was intact.

Read SC takes notice of delay in AGP appointment

He further noted that the “member of the assembly is the representative of the people of the constituency and the trustee of their trust”, and then asked if it “right for the trustee of public trust to boycott the parliament?”

The apex court justice further asked “how will it be determined that the NAB amendments are a case of public interest and importance?”

Justice Shah also noted that it has not been identified which fundamental rights the NAB amendments conflict with.

Makhdoom Ali Khan, the lawyer of the federal government, then made his remarks during the hearing and said that the PTI chief could have defeated the NAB amendments in the assembly if he wanted.

Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Umar Ata Bandial then remarked that the court will get an answer from the former prime minister on this point.

The CJP also asked if the court should not hear a public interest case only on the basis that the petitioner’s conduct was not correct.

He also noted that “every leader takes recourse to the Constitution to justify his actions”, adding that “boycotting the Parliament was a political strategy of PTI and that there is no legal justification for the political strategy”.

Justice Aijazul Ahsan then made his remarks during the hearing and questioned, “how many members approved the NAB amendments in the joint session of Parliament?”

To this, the federal government’s lawyer said that 166 members were participating in the joint session of the parliament at the time of approval of the bill.

Read More NAB drops inquiry against former adviser, SC informed

Justice Ahsan then noted that the number of members in a joint session is 446, which means less than half of the people voted for the bill, adding that the “court is only examining fundamental rights and points of crossing constitutional limits”.

He also stated that the petitioner challenged the NAB amendments for violation of public interest and fundamental rights, adding that the “question of Imran’s conduct would have arisen if there was any personal benefit to him from the NAB amendments”.

“Apparently, the petitioner does not seem to have any personal interest attached to the NAB amendments,” noted Justice Ahsan.

At this remark, the lawyer of the federal government argued that “it is not necessary to challenge the amendments for personal interest”, adding that the petitioner may also gain political advantage by challenging the NAB amendments.

“Imran Khan deliberately decided to leave Parliament empty,” stated the counsel.

To this, CJP Bandial remarked that “perhaps the former premier knew that he could not succeed in the Parliament, so he came to the court”.

Lawyer Khan then stated that any trial should be based on facts and not speculations, adding that “instead of upholding or invalidating the legislation, the court can also return it without a decision”.

The apex court then adjourned further hearing of the case till February 14.

Last year, PTI chief Imran Khan had challenged the amendments to the NAB ordinance contending in the petition that the tweaks in the accountability laws will “virtually eliminate any white-collar crime committed by a public office holder.”